United States v. Mario Asakevich

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that § 3231 does not provide jurisdiction for a district court to consider a post-conviction motion
• concluding that § 3231 does not provide jurisdiction for a district court to consider a motion to extend the time to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
• holding that § 3231’s grant of original jurisdiction did not “by itself provide [district court with] a basis for considering” a post-appeal motion for extension of time to file § 2255 motion (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “The federal courts have no license to issue advisory opinions . . . .”
• “[B]oth the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure apply in § 2255 proceedings, while only the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply in § 2254 proceedings.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).